For Those Who Support Anarchy As A Form Of Government

[CrossCuT]

Natural selection is reality. 

 

On what scale? 

[havok579257]

so there is no safety net for those who can't support themselves.  so in this form of government, the ones who truly need help will be least likely to get it.  so personal property is more important than helping the poor?  am I understanding it right?  cause that's how I am picking it up.

 

the way I see it, everyone in America pays taxes in some form from income tax to sales tax.  everyone in some way or another pays taxes.  in your form of government, there would be no taxes and would rely solely on generosity of others.  I think we can all agree there would be a large portion of this country who would not be generous with any of their extra money.  so without their forced giving(taxes), there would less financial help for those who need it most.  so the ones who truly need the most help would be worse off than they are now.  so how can you support a form of government that puts personal property above not only quality of life but of life in general of your fellow man?  how in your mind is it justifiable as a Christian?  to know that the form of government you support and hope happens would hurt the one who truly need the help most?  that you support a form of government that will we know will end up letting those who need help die for the sake of personal property?

 

this is what I don't understand and maybe someone can enlighten me on this.

[Winchester]

The ends don't justify the means. I don't know what else to say.

[CrossCuT]

Loss of property is more intrinsically evil than neglect?

[Winchester]

Loss of property is more intrinsically evil than neglect?

Who said that?

[CrossCuT]

The words have been thrown around so I asked a question

[Winchester]

Why would someone have to choose between losing property or being guilty of neglect? Could you describe the situation you're imagining?

[CrossCuT]

The one we have been talking about in this thread

[Winchester]

The one we have been talking about in this thread

No situation that would force someone to neglect others has been discussed. Anarchism does not force people to neglect others. It does prevent A from using violence to force B to help C. It does not forbid A from helping C.

[Lilllabettt]

what about:

 

the means de-legitimize the ends

[Winchester]

what about:

 

the means de-legitimize the ends

I don't know. What about it?

[Lilllabettt]

your ideal end is a violence-free, force-free society.

getting there would necessitate dismantling government support systems with likely grave consequences for the poor and vulnerable.

the means required to achieve your preferred end de-legitimize your end as an ethical possibility

Edited October 30, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[CrossCuT]

No situation that would force someone to neglect others has been discussed. Anarchism does not force people to neglect others. It does prevent A from using violence to force B to help C. It does not forbid A from helping C.

 

Of course not, but like we have said, there is no way to know how many B's will help C in order to make up for A's contribution. Maybe 0 B's will help. Then all the C's are neglected. Sorry if that word threw you off. 

 

But what Havok was trying ask is if taxes trumped the health and care of C? At least from  your own personal view of its relative evil/badness/whathaveyou.

You say that the work of A is sooooo bad it does not justify the good end of caring for C.

[Winchester]

your ideal end is a violence-free, force-free society.

getting there would necessitate dismantling government support systems with likely grave consequences for the poor and vulnerable.

the means required to achieve your preferred end de-legitimize your end as an ethical possibility

 

That's the best defense for theft I've seen. It relies on assumptions not borne out by the decline in poverty prior to the Great Society, but it's still pretty good.

[Aloysius]

of course his idea is that if the violence in government is in itself evil, then it cannot be morally justified to do it.  the twisting around of the logic to claim that to STOP doing that violence is somehow a "means" that is so-called "delegitimized" is not the proper argument to that.... you have to argue that the violence of government is legitimate for certain purposes, that it is morally justifiable to use the violence of government to accomplish things like a social safety net.  

 

there is plenty from the teaching of the Church that says that the use of government force is justified in the enforcement of the natural law, and the universal destination of goods (in the sense that the whole earth belongs to the whole of mankind) is part of the natural law that must be enforced.  I think you're going about it all wrong on the level of the means/ends argument, because Winnie's the only one at this point who's actually using the means/ends argument correctly.